 | |
List Price: $9.99 | | Label: Universal Studios
Salesrank: 9414
Released: June 8, 1999 |
| Our Price: $2.60 |
| Used Price: $2.20 |
|
MPAA Rating: R (Restricted)
Media: DVD |
|
Editorial Review:
Numerous critics had already sharpened their knives even before Gus Van Sant's shot-for-shot color "re-creation" of the 1960 black-and-white Hitchcock classic was released, chiding the Good Will Hunting director for defiling hallowed ground. This intriguing cinematic curiosity, though, is hardly as sacrilegious as critics would lead you to believe. If anything, Van Sant doesn't take enough liberties with his almost slavish devotion to the material, now updated with modern references. At times, you wish Van Sant would cut loose with a little spontaneity, a little energy, a little something. Unfortunately, when he does venture outside Hitchcock's parameters, with inserted shots of storm clouds during the murder sequences, it's to little effect. Granted, he liberally splashes color throughout the film (especially in the case of the infamous shower scene), and this is a great-looking movie, but in his obsession with adding a new physical dimension to the film, there's little insight into these characters that Hitchcock hadn't already provided. Vince Vaughn, a robotic and giggly Norman, doesn't crawl under your skin the way boy-next-door Anthony Perkins did, and Anne Heche is admirable if not very sympathetic in the Janet Leigh role. Van Sant does score a minor coup, though, in his casting of the supporting roles: Julianne Moore provides a welcome shot of energy as Heche's irritable and curious sister, William H. Macy is a perfect small-time detective, Viggo Mortensen is studly enough to make you understand why Heche would want to run away with him, and James LeGros walks away with his one brief scene as a used car salesman. And Danny Elfman's gorgeous rerecording of Bernard Herrmann's score is a potent supporting character unto itself. Students and fans of the original film will get a kick out of the modern revisions, but don't expect anything of Hitchcockian caliber; watch it for the sum of its intriguing parts, but not the whole. --Mark Englehart
Psycho Reviews:
A few design changes and pre-production decisions could have saved this 
2008-09-10 - I honestly believe that. If Gus Van Sant had gone for a TRUE shot-for-shot recreation, it could have been worlds better, though clearly not as good as the original.
I believe design changes and pre-production decisions done differently would have saved this.
For one, COLOR! Yes, color. One of the things that made the movie work so fantastically was that it was black and white, and set a mood that was ambiguous towards night or day, making them both seem as one. With color, there's no chance of that.
When Marion is driving away in her car, there is a lot of time devoted to just focusing on her face while she escapes with the money. This is utterly crucial. In the original movie, the car is a very claustrophobic place, with a dim view out the windows, which made the backgrounds seem ambiguous, and the car much smaller. It was like being placed in a closet with a light and a few paintings of scenery, it was that frightening.
In the re-make, there is no chance of that, as the picture is not only clear and colored, but more expansive, so you can see the world outside of the car, and it shows too much, leading to a more open, normal feel than the eerie, dreading, claustrophobic feel of the original.
This also comes to another problem: the picture's tone and/or lighting. I think this could make or break a film, and it broke this film badly. Certain genres of movie have a pervading mood that can be set by the look of the picture. For example, in the Matrix, the Matrix world was perpetually shaded in a sickly pale green tinting, while the "real" world was more clear, but much darker in shades of dark blue and gray. Fight Club also had sickly green tinting, which mirrors the Matrix when the narrator is at work.
The remake does not have this. It does not have any sort of moody tone set by color or picture quality or lighting. It is filmed in the same broad, generic style as a romantic comedy or comedy-drama with 90% of its budget spent solely on big-name actors. This does not fit the horror/shock/thriller genre AT ALL.
And really, the image of the film is what made the original a phenomenal movie. The dialogue and delivery is very dry and deadpan, but it's simply the look of the environments and the look of the characters that sell it beautifully.
That fails here yet again, with the casting choices so much as the imagery.
Anne Heche: From another website's analysis of the two films, I find I highly agree with the somewhat crude, but utterly true statement that the physical appeal of the women (Janet Leigh in the original, Anne Heche here) plays a big role in how the character comes off to both male and female viewers. Janet Leigh's Marion Crane was a small, petite woman, but she was also very beautiful in a traditional sort of way, and somewhat cute in a way that even women would feel for her and find themselves taken in by her beauty.
Anne Heche does not have that; she is small and petite, but not in the beautiful, soft kind of way that Janet Leigh is. To quote the comparison of the website (Cinemademerde), Anne Heche is "sharp and clipped and angular". In particular her hair is very off-putting, and makes her a very off-putting figure, not very appealing to most people, and in a somewhat unfair way, not well-placed in her role, especially since appearance really matters in this sort of film---the dialogue would suffer from being overly dry otherwise.
Vince Vaughn: I'm still heavily skeptical over this choice. Considering the choice of roles he usually plays, being a sleazy, trashy sort of guy, I was blown away by how utterly convincing Vaughn is in playing Norman Bates (whereas he was completely unconvincing as the police officer in The Cell).
But unfortunately, as I keep mentioning, appearance matters! While he sells the psychopathic nature of Norman Bates very well, he still looks like a sleazy, trashy sort of guy. Considering the fact that Norman Bates is an uptight, heavily socially repressed, psychopathic momma's boy, I'd expect him to be less casual and sleazy looking, and more uptight, formal, and well-kempt.
And in particular, Norman's mother. In the original, her body is kept in a cold, dark, damp basement that looks highly claustrophobic (a theme here) and frightening. When she's revealed as dead, there is only one lamp on, that gets knocked and spins about. The body is almost entirely in darkness, so you don't get a very good view of her corpse, but still enough to be shocked by it.
In the remake, the basement seems enormously large, and is almost too-well lit; it actually looks like it's above ground, with windows casting in light. When the mother is shown, it's in clear light, so it's less like a horrifying revelation, and more like being shown a mummy in a well-lit museum environment. Even the bleach blonde hair adds to the cheese factor of it.
That is the basic idea of what I think went wrong with this remake, and how it could have been improved. As it stands, the biggest problem is the lack of mood or tone set by coloring or film quality, etcetera. It is filmed like a basic comedy-drama, completely lacking in environment.
I have not seen... 
2008-08-20 - ...this movie nor do I plan to after reading about on Wikipedia. Hithcock's Psycho was perfect and did not need to be remade!
Another cheap Hollyweird cash in.
2008-06-24 - Another year, another remake.
How sad, the only director to get the whole remake thing right is Rob Zombie with Halloween who took the original and turned it into something entirely new and unique.
Psycho, like the Omen remake is completely pointless.
It's the identical movie with one additional scene, (those who have seen this monstrosity will know which scene I refer to...ahem)
Same as the original only the acting, directing, pacing, atmosphere is NOWHERE near as good as the original.
I refuse to recommend this hideous adaptation.
AVOID!!!!!!
PSYCHO????
2008-04-12 - The remake of Psycho is not even close to the original which Sir Alfred Hitchcock made into a real suspense. Gus Van Sant did a lousy job in directing this remake of Psycho. For one the characters in this movie can't even compare to the original in the 60's Hitchcock thriller whatsoever.
Anne Hect couldn't even play Marian Crane like Janet Leigh did. Vince Vaughn playing Norman Bates? You got to be kidding me? Can't even come close to the creepy look of Anthony Perkins one bit! Instead of scaring you Vince Vaughn makes you just laugh at him. How scary is Norman Bates in this movie?
A circus clown could have done a better job.lol. Julianne Moore as Lyla Crane? Nope Vera Miles did a better job. What is up with Vigo Mortensen ripping off the acting of John Gavin who did a better job as Sam Loomis. What was Gus Van Sant thinking by putting Sam Loomis as a cowboy? LOL! What? Oh and William H. Macy as Milton Arbogast? Nah Martin Balsam did a better job also.
What is up with the motel and house that the original looked like? This one looks so cheesy not even creepy like PSYCHO. So you see Psycho can't even come close to the original one bit. When I saw the original it scared me along with the sequels and prequels but the remake made me laugh. Scary my foot! Gus Van Sant can't even top Alfred Hitchock!
Interesting how Vince Vaughn's name is missing 
2008-03-15 - If you've looked closely at the credits here, you will see how Vince Vaughn's and Anne Heche's names have been removed from the credits. In fact, top billing is given to one O. B. Babbs, who has made maybe 5 films in his life, and plays a mechanic in this version of Psycho. Odd.
Looks like Vaughn's and Heche's PR people have tried to distance their clients as much as possible from this film.
They are the main characters, for pete's sake. Shouldn't they be listed?
